W. Tracy Parnell

It seems that much of the H&L talk has moved over to DPF. For example, our own Dawn Meredith said:

And John told me on Sat that Parnell used to write glowing stuff about H and L.

For the record, I never wrote anything "glowing" about H&L. I wrote a couple of letters to Armstrong to feel him out although I had a pretty good idea what he was about. He replied to me in a very courteous manner, which I appreciated and I told him that. He offered some suggestions on research and of course tried to steer me to his way of thinking. This was in 1997 when you could not find everything on the Internet like you can now. But all of my public writings, articles, forum posts, etc. have been critical.

Posted by Mark Valenti at Duncan MacRae's forum:

Picking up on a theory offered by G reg P arker, the whole Harvey and Lee debacle feels less like a sincere research project and more like a Trojan horse designed to upend serious efforts, and sow serious discord within the research community. Created by independently wealthy John Armstrong, who somehow has the means to travel the world in the pursuit of information he can use to further his mission, the book and its devoted followers routinely offer ridiculously circuitous data, distracting side issues, unprovable theories and a loosely constructed narrative that can safely be called cringe-worthy by most rational thinkers.

Armstrong's followers are passionate in an almost ecstatically religious manner; they devote hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours to its promotion and protection. The theory - wherein Cold War era spies raised two young boys from different continents who looked alike, for nefarious future purposes - has never gained serious traction in the mainstream press.

But if it ever does, it will surely spell the end of any kind of respect that researchers may have gained over the decades. The entire community will collapse like Tower 7, and the Warren Report will rise to a permanent throne of respectability.

Here are some interesting statements from Major Ed Rouse

Psychological Operations or PSYOP are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of organizations, groups, and individuals. Used in all aspects of war, it is a weapon whose effectiveness is limited only by the ingenuity of the commander using it.

Psychological Operations (PSYOP) or Psychological Warfare (PSYWAR) is simply learning everything about your target enemy, their beliefs, likes, dislikes, strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities. Once you know what motivates your target, you are ready to begin psychological operations.

Psychological operations may be defined broadly as the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behavior ... to create in target groups behavior, emotions, and attitudes that support the attainment of national objectives. The form of communication can be as simple as spreading information covertly by word of mouth or through any means of multimedia.

There can be no greater harm done to the JFK research community than to sow discord within and position it as a laughingstock from without. Harvey and Lee does both, in spades. It is a well-funded, religiously-promoted, in-your-face theory with extremely energetic and pugnacious defenders willing to spread the gospel as far as possible.

If it ever truly moves out of the shadowy fringes and into daylight, it's curtains for any meaningful chance to gain access to those still-hidden government files. Any request coming from the JFK community will be laughed out of court.

13-5.

The film "Twelve Angry Men" At the start, Eleven for conviction, one against. At the end, twelve for acquittal.

12-5

Citing fiction in defense of fiction.

So says the expert on fiction...

12-6

12-5, I already counted you, Hargrove and Gaal in the beginning.

My Count, let me know if anyone disputes anything:

Pro-H&L

Hargrove

Josephs

Gaal

Blank

Mitcham

Against-H&L

Parker

Parnell

Sorensen

Graves

Brancato

Kamp

Loney

Kinaski

Tidd

Carroll

Laverick

Speer

Can't Tell

Healy

Steve,

My point is there is nothing in the source Hargrove cites about a team. The book seems to show a belief in one Landesberg who Sanders/Fowler believe was the actor (which it was not). They also believe the FBI and there was no Oswald. So it doesn't say what he says it does. If he wants to speculate he can, but there is no basis for it based on his source.

I talked to an expert on 60's radical politics while working on my article and he mentioned the Sanders/Fowler/Landesberg thing to me, so I included it in my article endnotes as an example of a documented account of Landesberg posing as L'Eandes. I am going to have to go back and edit that to reflect the fact that Fowler thought it was the actor which lessens the veracity of the report to me.

In a book called The Glories of the Early '60s, author Ed Sanders provides information that shows that the actor Steve Landesberg and the agitator Steve Landesberg were both working together as a team. Here is a summary of the information from the book:

Not by my reading of the book. It is clear that Sanders thinks the actor and agitator were one and the same person, which they were not-Armstrong disproved that theory himself. From the Sanders book:

By November 29, the FBI office in NYC sent out a notice that the investigation was to cease. They had learned by then that Rizzuto, the original source to radio host Barry Gray, and L’Eandes and Landesberg were one and the same! Steve Landesberg later became a well-known television comedian, starring on the “Barney Miller”sitcom, and why he claimed that Oswald had disrupted political meetings in Greenwich Village remains a mystery.

So it appears to me that Sanders believes the FBI was right that Landesberg/L'Eandes/Rizzuto were the same person and that person was the actor Landesberg. He also doesn't seem to buy the Oswald stuff. Nothing about a "team" here.

12-4.

Jim Hargrove said:

Assassination researcher Joachim Joesten was intersted in the Landesberg case years before John Armstrong was. Here's an excerpt:

Now I know where Armstrong got 90 percent of his Landesberg stuff!

i stand with the truth. i stand with mr. armstrong.

i say let the DNA speak for itself.

That makes 9-4.

So you've read the work on Alice Tracy?

Not in a while, no.

BTW, while I'm thinking of it, David Josephs is asking "what about Alice TX, what about people who saw Ruby & Oswald."

I saw a report on the men that broke out of prison in upstate NY. They have had over 800 people call in with tips and sightings even in that little rural area. How many of those do you think really happened? How about maybe as few as zero since Cuomo admitted they may be in Mexico for all he knows.

Jim Hargrove said:

Still waiting for a full answer!

My answer is that anyone can say anything. Palmer McBride and Wulf and Faircloth can say what they want. And you can tell me what great people they are and you would be right I am sure. And they may believe they are telling the truth, but the documentation proves otherwise IMO. Now having said this, I will be doing what I can as I have time to refute as much as I can as an ongoing project. But Rome wasn't built in a day.

Jim Hargrove said:

The evening of the assassination McBride told Air Force security officers that he had worked with Oswald in 1957-58. He told the same thing to the FBI (CE1386). And you think he did this for attention?

No, of course not. His initial comments were simply in error. The attention stuff came later after Armstrong got a hold of him.

And, of course, there is always the current president of the Pfisterer Dental Lab, Linda Faircloth

Yes, she was another of the people recruited in Armstrong's "witness recruitment program".

Each of the owners of the company, and each employee, was taken into a private room and warned not to mention or discuss Oswald with anyone at any time.

Prove it, and when you can do that take it to Morley.

Now, Tracy, we look forward to you providing a single document (or even more) to confirm the basis of any reply you may care to make. It may be easier for you to just use your imagination to debunk the preceding.

That's easy, the tax documents that show when Oswald worked at Pfisterers and when he was in the service do that nicely. Those same documents forced Armstrong to say they were faked.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the citation on Aucoin. If I don't hear anything, I'll have to assume there is none and I'll reflect my webpage accordingly:

http://wtracyparnell.com/orvie-aucoin/

Jim Hargrove wrote:

Tracey, you are the one who changed topics. This thread is about HARVEY and LEE, not about a 2nd cameraman who photographed Oswald. John Pic's WC testimony that the man handing out FPCC literature was not his brother is central to the HARVEY and LEE thread. Would you care to discuss and try to debunk Pic's testimony?

So me pointing out an error in the book Harvey & Lee is off the topic of Harvey & Lee? Fine Jim if you say so. I have commented on Pic before-he did not say it was not his brother, only that he could not recognize him from that particular photo. Paul Trejo gives a very good list of explanations.

While I have you here Jim, could you provide a citation for the claim that Aucoin was an FBI informant? I am not saying it is not true, just that I can't find it anywhere.

Jeff Morley is a good guy. A good guy who does not understand intelligence operations. He uncovered some stuff about George Joannides. Some valuable stuff. He wrote a good book about Win Scott. But he does not understand the JFK assassination, because he does not understand intelligence operations.

Not understanding intelligence operations means following false trails.

I agree. What sort of intel operation would Harvey and Lee be, Jon? What precedent similar operations are there?

I can answer that-there is absolutely no precedent for the type of operation Armstrong describes.

David,

One reason witnesses lie is for the attention they are receiving. Take Palmer McBride for example. He was told that he was not wrong in his remembrances concerning Oswald. That is a powerful motivation for anyone-hey I wasn't wrong after all. Then he was told he was a witness to history and people at JFK conferences wanted to hear his story. Now he was not only right but a star as well. That is a powerful motivator IMO.

Remember the show Seinfeld? George Castanza said, "its not a lie if you believe it." And some people convince themselves they are telling the truth even when they are not.

Finally, some people are just mistaken. Most people have had the experience of remembering an event a certain way and then finding out their memory was wrong. I know I have.

But no, I don't know why Ms. Lewis is saying the things she is. Attention would be my guess.

They all look like the same guy to me except "Frankenstein". Still hoping information may become available that will explain that photo.

Coming from the expert flogger... still can't figure out how they got 200 days - right GP?

Wonder why Robert states his brother went to PS 44 in Manhattan as opposed to the one on Prospect by his apartment...??

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=37#entry305786

The poll's life cycle:

Because Robert (and Marguerite testifying before the WC) were just as confused by their convoluted past as anyone else reading about it is. They moved so many times and Marguerite told so many self serving lies that their full chronology will probably never be known. And so far, by my count, we are winning the poll 9-3.

David Josephs wrote:

John's most recent work on Landes(berg). The discovery and learning process never ends...

Curiously, this is the same time period that Anna Lewis says she mets Lee Oswald in New Orleans - Feb 1962.

I hope this helps clarify the line of thought and manner in which John accumulates and presents information... Evidence is offered, options are considered, more research needs to be done...

There is absolutely nothing new in this "most recent" work. All of these points have been covered either in my article or in my previous reply to Hargrove. I may summarize this when I get time. In the meantime, lurkers can see my article and decide:

http://wtracyparnell.com/the-hoaxster-and-the-conspiracy-theorists/

As I posted in a thread prior to 2009, I personally witnessed a story in the Village Voice, sometime between 1980 and 1983, that associated the actor Steve (R.) Landesberg with the activities ascribed to Stephen H. Landesberg / L'Eandes. So this topic has had some coverage in what was, by the early 1980s, a mainstream newspaper; and it predates John Armstrong's 1993 letter to the actor by a decade or more, and also Armstrong's meeting with the broadcaster Golz.

My recollection was that the Voice story was written by a regular columnist to that paper and appeared in its front pages, where regular columns routinely appeared. I cannot vouch for the contents of the story, but they were substantially similar to the L'Eandes history in Parnell's article.

Interested parties with access to a Voice index for those years may be able to track this coverage down. I cannot promise how much satisfaction it will bring. But it happened.

Dave,

I'm not saying such a story doesn't exist. But it makes me wonder why Armstrong wouldn't have used it instead of citing the 61-62 era stories which don't support his assertions? If the story from the 80's exists another explanation could be that is where Armstrong got the idea in the first place. But the main point is, coverage from the Voice of Landesberg's appearance at rallies doesn't mention anyone except the unknown girl.

Jim Hargrove said:

On the contrary, John would have welcomed legal action from the actor Landesberg. This would have provided the opportunity, through legal discovery and depositions, to learn more about Landesberg and his background.

Then why, when told to drop the matter by Landesberg's head of security, did he immediately do so? If he would have "welcomed" legal action there was his opportunity to have it. Landesberg was simply a private person who preferred to keep his personal life to himself. But, in fact, he intimated what he was doing in the years before he made it big-working as a credit clerk. No mystery here at all, except to John Armstrong.

As a child growing up Landesberg (the agitator) was normal, except for a speech impediment. He was on the Dean's honor roll at Rutgers University, earned an MBA from Columbia, and became a successful businessman. It was 5 days after he joined the Marine Corps that his troubles first began...

One again, Armstrong and his followers are misrepresenting the actual situation-your chronology is off. He may indeed have eventually become a successful businessman, but after dropping out of Rutgers he started bumming around the country and lost 25 pounds. His family was very concerned for his well being during this time. He eventually returned home and joined the Marines which triggered his full mental breakdown. He was sent to the Provost Marshal after exhibiting "bizarre and unusual behavior. He then described a history of “aberrant sexual behavior” and his attitude was so “unusual” that he was remanded to the psychiatric unit.

From my article:

While under observation at the psychiatric ward, Landesberg behaved in a “belligerent demanding manner” and, after yelling at staff, was sedated with Thorazine and placed in a quiet room. He did not react favorably to this change of circumstances and became “more loosened in his associations and far more suspicious.” He then began to threaten the examining physician and stated that he would “demand to see the Commandant of the Marine Corps because his rights had been violated.” The admission diagnosis was confirmed as “Schizophrenic Reaction N.E.C # 3007, manifested by loosened associations, tangential and concrete thought processes, paranoid ideation, grandiose ideation and a long history of nomadic wandering and poor interpersonal relationships.”

In other words, he had a full schizophrenic mental breakdown. When you have one of those, you are paranoid and suspicious of everything. That was the reason for his behavior, not the fact that the Marines were trying to do something nefarious to him.

He was sent to mental institution for 6 months, and later discharged for a physical (not mental) disability.

At the time, Schizophrenic Reaction N.E.C # 3007 was technically classified as a physical disability. If anyone has any doubt about his mental condition being the reason for his discharge, they can read the eleven page document here:

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/4133

After his incarceration Landesberg, according to statements made to the FBI, was paid to participate and disrupt liberal rallies in the NYC area.

But the statements you refer to were made by Landesberg himself posing as Rizzuto. There is no other evidence for any of his story including that a man name Regan paid him or that Regan even existed. Indeed, the entirety of the evidence of Oswald in NYC in 61&62 comes from Landesberg's statement.

Within ten hours of Oswald's arrest, Landesberg (using the name "Rizzuto") contacted radio host Barry Gray and was invited to the studio for an interview. He told Gray that in 1961-62 “Lee Harvey Oswald" attended and photographed disruptions at these liberal rallies (while another Oswald was in Russia). It is important to remember that Gray gave no indication that the man he knew as "Rizzuto" in 1963 was the same individual who identified himself as "L'Eandes" when interviewed by Gray in 1961.

Armstrong assumes the interview was at the studio, but I can find nothing to confirm that or that Gray was present. Why would he be? I don't think the FBI is in the habit of letting radio show hosts sit in on interviews. In fact, I saw one document that stated Landesberg went to the FBI office for the interview. But for the sake of argument, lets say Gray saw "Rizzuto". It is likely, and I can find nothing to the contrary, that Landesberg (posing as L'Eandes) called in to the studio when he spoke to Gray in 1961 so he wouldn't know what he looked like in any case.

When interviewed by the FBI, Landesberg told the agents that he was a paid agitator and that someone else gave him the information about Oswald. There is no indication these agents asked Landesberg anything about his knowledge or involvement with Oswald in 1961-62. Nor did they ask Landesberg who paid him to disrupt rallies.

The reason Landesberg said someone else gave him the information is not too tough to figure out. At some point he realized he was going to be in trouble so he was trying to pass the buck. The agents didn't ask about Oswald because they knew it never happened. They, like most reasonable people, knew there was only one Oswald and he was not in NYC at the time. And Landesberg had already stated that it was "Regan" who paid him so the FBI didn't need to ask. Funny thing the FBI couldn't find any Regan. That is because Regan and Earl Perry existed only in the mind of Landesberg.

Nor did they contact Thunderbolt Magazine to identify the individual who provided one or more photos taken at liberal rallies in NYC (allegedly Oswald, circa 1961-62).

100 per cent false. The FBI contacted the magazine and could find no such photo.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62289&relPageId=33&search=thunderbolt

The most powerful evidence (other than Oswald was in Russia) that Oswald or Earl Perry were not at the rallies is provided by the Village Voice articles. The Voice covered political rallies very closely and were very familiar with Landesberg (posing as L"Eandes). Lurkers can find the various articles they wrote online (some are in my endnotes). They described Landesberg's antics in detail and although they mentioned a girl who seemed to be working with him at one point, they never mentioned anyone taking pictures. It defies belief when one reads their detailed reporting that they would have neglected to mention a cameraman or anyone else assisting Landesberg. By the way, Armstrong cites the Village Voice as a source for his assertion that Oswald was taking photos at a rally. When you go to the article there is nothing about Oswald, of course, or even about anyone taking photos.

Instead, the Bureau charged Landesberg with lying to Federal agents and had him committed to Bellevue Hospital for a 10 day psychiatiric observation. All charges against Landesberg were later dropped and there was no investigation to determine if Oswald had been in NYC in 1961-62.

They charged him with lying because that is what he did. He was sent to Bellevue when his previous mental trouble became known. The charges were probably dropped because of his condition. There was no investigation for obvious reasons-obvious to everyone but John Armstrong that is.

John Armstrong thought the US District Court file might have additional information on Landesberg, so he traveled to 40 Foley Square in NYC to examine Court records (USA vs. Stephen Harris Landesberg). Rosemarie Fugnetti, supervisor of the court's Records Control Division, discovered that both the original paper file and the microfilm record of the case had disappeared. She was unaware of another time when both sets of records for a single case had disappeared.

From my article:

I can think of a few reasons why the records were allegedly not there. They could have been misplaced or routinely or accidentally destroyed. Perhaps Ms. Fugnetti didn’t want to bother finding them, especially if she became aware of the nature of Armstrong’s interest. Of course, Armstrong hopes that the reader will draw the most sinister meaning possible from his allegation that the records are missing. What shocking truth might be in the records that would cause the government to hide or destroy them he doesn’t say.

John's interest in Steve Landesberg, the actor, began only after talking with well-known Dallas newspaper reporter Earl Golz in the mid-1990s. Golz said that he had watched a television interview with Landesberg, and the actor said that he was “sorry he ever got mixed up with Oswald.” Yes, the information provided by Golz to John is second hand, as is every article written by Golz and published in Dallas newspapers. There was no indication that the actor's comment was made in jest and there has been no retraction made either publicly or privately.

This is all covered in my article. Armstrong did the same thing in this case that he did with Mrs. Jack Tippit, Palmer McBride and Aline Mosby. He takes one small thing and makes it into a federal case. Does Armstrong have any confirmation of the actor Landesberg's alleged comment such as a video clip? No. Does he know the context the alleged remark was made in? No. As far as a retraction-for what? A statement that has no proof of having ever been made?

John drew no conclusions as to either the actor or the agitator's involvement with Oswald in 1961-62. However, the fact that SOMEONE was publicly disclosing information about Oswald (in 1961-62) within hours of the assassination is difficult to explain and deserves more research. Should future researchers have an interest in the "Landesberg" story, John's material at Baylor is a good starting point.

No conclusion, just a bunch of rhetorical questions. The someone was Landesberg and he was "disclosing information" that was a blend of publicly available information about Oswald, kernels of truth from his own experiences (he was in the Marines, he may have known an Earl Perry) and complete fabrications. Should anyone have an interest in Landesberg, a better starting point is my 8600 word article that took me two months to write. Even though the Landesberg case is a very confusing one (partly because of the aliases used by Landesberg) and my article is lengthy, I urge researchers to take the time to look at my article. The Landesberg case is a microcosm of what is wrong with John Armstrong's research methods and conclusions.

http://wtracyparnell.com/the-hoaxster-and-the-conspiracy-theorists/

It seems Armstrong has been caught in yet another error. On 6/09/15 I received the following from Gary Mack which was also sent to David Lifton:

Gentleman,

Tonight I sent a PM to Jim Hargrove asking about Armstrong's source for writing that WDSU-TV's "Orvie Aucoin" filmed his leafletting in New Orleans.

That's nonsense. WDSU assigned Johann Rush to cover the event that, in advance, looked like it might become a news story. Similarly, WWL-TV assigned their Mike O'Connor to do the same thing (WDSU was the NBC affiliate, WWL was CBS). The ABC affiliate, WVUE-TV, which was Aucoin's employer, ignored the event.

If either of you knows otherwise, please let me know. I know Rush and he's explained for years that Oswald tipped off WDSU in advance by calling the news room the day before and telling them what he'd be doing and where. Ha! He was his own PR firm?

John did NOT make an error in his write-up, but this minutia about camermen and witnesses is minor stuff. What is in error here, is to focus on unimportant little details while ignoring the enormous elephant in the room here. When shown one of the photographs taken of "Oswald" while distributing FPCC literature, here is what "Oswald's" own half brother told the Warren Commission:

Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet?

Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him.

Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother?

Mr. PIC - That is correct.

Jenner then switches topics. Isn't Jenner's lack of interest in this information remarkable?? Why don't you talk about that?

How is this not an error? Maybe Armstrong's definition of "error" is different than mine-that would explain alot. In an attempt to tie the cameraman at the leafleting incident to the FBI or CIA he states Aucoin was the cameraman when he wasn't-Rush and Mike O'Connor were. Aucoin didn't even work for WDSU. And talk about switching topics, that is what is going on here-what does Pic have to do with this? Aucoin was not the cameraman, that is my point or rather Gary's point.

David Josephs said:

but good examples of the perils of writing a 1000 page book from 100,000 pages of research on your own.

While I'm thinking of it, the 100,000 pages of research are not really anywhere near that figure. In my research for the Landesberg piece, I noticed that there are copies of nearly everything in Armstrong's archive and in some cases there are three or four copies. So I would guess it is more like 35-40,000 documents. Still a great deal of material for sure and Armstrong is to be commended for providing it.

It seems Armstrong has been caught in yet another error. On 6/09/15 I received the following from Gary Mack which was also sent to David Lifton:

Gentleman,

Tonight I sent a PM to Jim Hargrove asking about Armstrong's source for writing that WDSU-TV's "Orvie Aucoin" filmed his leafletting in New Orleans.

That's nonsense. WDSU assigned Johann Rush to cover the event that, in advance, looked like it might become a news story. Similarly, WWL-TV assigned their Mike O'Connor to do the same thing (WDSU was the NBC affiliate, WWL was CBS). The ABC affiliate, WVUE-TV, which was Aucoin's employer, ignored the event.

If either of you knows otherwise, please let me know. I know Rush and he's explained for years that Oswald tipped off WDSU in advance by calling the news room the day before and telling them what he'd be doing and where. Ha! He was his own PR firm?

With all due respect, Tracy - if that was a lie and not an inadvertent error, it's an innocuous one since it does nothing to advance the theory.

I would much rather get an explanation for lies that did advance the theory.

Let's start with White's lies about his relationship with Kudlaty.

Did he not know Kudlaty at all, as Armstrong claims White told him?

Or did White have a 50+ year old friendship with Kudlaty?

Or did White know Kudlaty as an acquaintance at college and not see him again for 50+ years?

Both of the latter stories being given to me a few years ago on this forum by White.

After that's answered, I'd like to return to the dishonest use of the Frankenstein image because the explanations thus far have been less than adequate.

Greg,

I probably should have set it up a little better. On page 575 of Harvey & Lee Armstrong says:

"It is worth remembering and repeating that everyone associated with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee leafletting incident on August 9th and 16th, and Oswald’s radio interviews of August 17th and 21st, were connected to intelligence agencies-everyone including Oswald."

In support of this statement he has a list of people he says are connected to intelligence agencies. Aucoin appears on the list as the cameraman for the leafleting incident. So while this is probably not advancing the theory as a whole it is an example of Armstrong using bogus information to make a point.

I agree with you though that I would like some answers to the points you made.